I think switching things up every 3-4 months keeps me fresh. Shooting primes after being a zoom boy for a long time forces me to consider compositions that would never occur to me on a 24-70 or 70-200. But, after a while I get sloppy and end up doing so much cropping in post. Then, I'll switch back to zooms. Once my work becomes predictable and boring again I'll switch back.
That being said... The reliability of these Nikon zooms sometimes makes it hard to justify missing shots because of some slow ass prime.
I have all 3 lenses, and do not plan to sell any of them. If I had to chose ONE lens for a wedding, I would go with the 24-70 II. However, I usually have my 85 for portraits even with the 24-70.
I love my 35 still and use that when my wife 2nd shoots for me (she uses the 24-70), and also serves as my back up for the 24-70.
I've found I'm a better photographer when I simplify. The vast majority of a wedding I'm running around with either the 24-70/70-200 combo or 24-70/50 1.2L combos depending on light.
I shoot all primes now but zooms have their place. I really prefer the quality of the primes to the zooms but the zooms allow you to get in a few more shots. The whole reason why I use primes now is that I could shoot zoom with a lot of other cameras but if I'm carrying my pro gear, I'm going to shoot primes just for that extra boost in quality. Primes also get more attractive if you have a system to switch lenses quickly like a harness system.
I shoot what works for me. Just shoot what works for you.
For me personally, I like primes and tend to have focal lengths I like for specific parts of the day. Getting ready? 35mm. General coverage, portraits and details? 50mm. Ceremony? 150mm. Reception? 28mm. I'll vary this depending on my setting and the needs I have, but generally speaking this is where I work best.
I forgot to mention, for Canon users how do you guys like Canon 50/1.2 L? I'm having interest to give a try but little hesitant due to my experience with 85/1.2 which little slow on the focus.
The 50 1.2L is a fantastic lens. Along with my 24-70II, it is my most used lens at a wedding. Completely usable at f/1.2 with the right body like a 5D3 and creates imagery with character.
cineski wrote:
The 50 1.2L is a fantastic lens. Along with my 24-70II, it is my most used lens at a wedding. Completely usable at f/1.2 with the right body like a 5D3 and creates imagery with character.
Seriously? Many would say that 50mm is one of the more common, boring focal lengths. Of course that's a ridiculous statement, just as is your inane statement that it can create imagery with character. It is a capable, fast focusing lens. Many find it to be finicky wide open. But clearly it's up to the user to create imagery with character - whether it's with a 50 1.2 or a 17-40 f4.
As with all gear, it depends on how you use it. Except no matter how hard you try, you simply can't shoot the 17-40 at f/1.2 and you can't shoot the 50 1.2 at 17mm. So.....meh.
cineski wrote:
Except no matter how hard you try, you simply can't shoot the 17-40 at f/1.2 and you can't shoot the 50 1.2 at 17mm. So.....meh.
Typical statement from someone who believes gear makes the photographer.
maxx9photo wrote:
I forgot to mention, for Canon users how do you guys like Canon 50/1.2 L? I'm having interest to give a try but little hesitant due to my experience with 85/1.2 which little slow on the focus.
The 50/1.2 is a fantastic lens but I think I may use it differently than some other looking to use a 50 for a general lens. I choose primes to pretty much "paint" the image the way I see it. Each prime has very specific characteristics not only due to the aperture speed but also in its usage. It's almost indescribable. The 50/1.2 I use for shots I need to be completely "flat". When I have great horizontal lines that I'm shooting in order to form an artificial horizon with no distortion, the 50/1.2 is used specifically for that shot. The focus is slower on the 1.2 aperture lenses but IMO, you can't get the same shot with a 50/1.4 or 50/1.8. The first time I touched the 50/1.2, I hated it but then, I realized that I wasn't using it to its advantages. You can't get that same shot with a smaller aperture prime and definitely not with a zoom due to distortion and the general characteristics of the lens.
TRReichman wrote:
I shot all prime for the first 5-6 years of my career. I'm glad I did because it taught me what the different focal lengths/categories could do. Now I shoot all zoom (I have some primes as backup, hardly ever used). When you are shooting primes you tend to tilt to fit the scene into the lens. You tend to have sloppier edges and messier backgrounds (on average, YMMV). My work is infinitely cleaner because I can crop and perfect the framing in camera. Some people say zooms make you lazy which is really just a choice. There are times you can't or shouldn't move around as much and having zooms allows you to kill the coverage and stay low-profile.
As far as weight is concerned it goes both ways. You can shoot with lighter, prime lenses but then you usually need 2 cameras or extra lenses to switch between. So much of the time you carry the same amount of weight, it just depends on how you distribute it.
Shallow DOF is great for portraits but I tend to find that for more candid coverage clients generally want to see the people in the photo, not just half of one subject's eyelash or whatever ends up in focus. The more I focused on candid, relationship-based content the more I started stopping-down to capture the whole "story".
I usually shoot 1 camera with a zoom (24-70, 24-120 or 70-200). Occasionally I'll use a 28 1.8 for a detail shot, or a 180mm prime as a portrait lens to complement one of the wide zooms. I use a 50mm prime when traveling to keep things simple.
Simple story is that I learned a ton shooting prime only, and then my work got infinitely more refined by switching to zooms after.
Anyone using a Zeiss for their portraits either during a wedding or anything? I've been curious about this for a while now, just never pulled the trigger.
BriMcD wrote:
.
Anyone using a Zeiss for their portraits either during a wedding or anything?
Yeah, I've used the Zeiss 50/2.0 macro for both portraits and the rest of the wedding candids.
First off, I will say it WAS sharp glass - even at 2.0! No haze! It had a short focus "throw" so even with a crop sensor camera, you can really see the focus going in and out - moreso than any Canon 50 I've used. (That's a good thing.) But for portraits end result, the clients didn't appreciate the lens that was used.
Second, for informal portraits, manual focus really slowed down the time it took to get the lens in focus when comparing what the expectations were of typical subjects. And, again, while the lens was extraordinarily sharp, some subjects bitched about the time it took to acquire focus. Overall, I don't think the Zeiss 50/2.0 macro is worth the money for events shooting.
